Olympus OM-D E-M1X review

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is a dual-grip Micro Four Thirds mirrorless camera aimed at pro sports and action photographers. It's designed to be rugged, durable, fast and capable, and has a price tag to match that ambition.

The EM1X uses fast readout and fast processing both to provide high-level AF performance and fast burst shooting as well as a range of novel modes and features. It also promises new levels of performance in terms of weather resistance.

Designed for a space capsule; big enough to grab if it falls off a shelve? An obvious choice for those that find all other OLYMPUS camera designs as bland.Attention getter maybe; a new trend maybe; but it does seem defeating the purpose of the MFT mandate that small is beautiful. The question being does this camera have personality; yes especially for fashion photographers wearing the latest gadget to impress their clients.

After watching review seems new OLYMPUS E-M1X is a game-changer and worth considering with AI and other perks. Changed my mind....OLYMPUS has designed something that defies convention. Just the beginning of their revival....

Like my OM-D E-M1 & 4/3 lenses, like my D700 too, love the D810,like my Sony A7s with the collection of old MD Minolta manual lenses too.Lots of fun. Can't accept this new camera being a D5 equivalent,I think that claim will be proven to be off the mark by quite a margin. Given certain Oly fans are talking big, there is bound to be a comparison test & will follow the outcome with interest. There are some with a sense of humour on the page, the "I had it" tally is currently 22.

Sweeping generalization....so getting bigger and expecting more is not a crime. SONY A9 better and bigger than SONY A7. Olympus and Panasonic believe MFT have a future. To me FF make exaggerated claims; so they are not alone.

EVF brightness test?@dpreviewAt some point, we had a Sony A7ii and an Olympus OMD EM-5 mark ii together in operation. One on the things I liked more about the Sony was the viewfinder: the OLED produced a more pleasant, colourful and finer image. This perception of the Sony EVF just being better however changed on a hire in the snow. Sky was clear, sun was out, so it was just very bright, nice for photography, but the Sony EVF could not cope with this, it was just too dark, even at full brightness setting, so every time I looked in the viewfinder I had to wait a few seconds until my eye adapted. The Olympus was much better in this respect, even the shadows remain visible. So, whilst I still see that the the Sony is nicer in most conditions, I learned that the TFT from Olympus also holds benefits. My suggestion would be that you add a test that measured the maximal brightness of EVFs, or even better, how big the range is they can cover.

Does DPR shoot by using both eyes open?Enable S-OVF and then sit both eyes open and look how the naked eye sees same as the eye in the EVF does. Color balance, brightness, contrast etc. Far far superior to anything Sony, Nikon or Canon has.

And what does S-OVF do? It disables the live view, so you don't see what you get. And that is why Olympus EVF is better that competition does with OLED as you see what you get, instead oversaturated, high contrasty artificial image.

Where Olympus allows to judge camera settings for color, tone, contrast and exposure, others so not at all as accurately.Are others nicer to look? Sure... Same way as OLED television had ugly Samsung kind over saturation and too hard contrast etc because average people like that. But once you do color calibration for television, you have just wasted money on OLED panels and a lot...

It is a era of Instagram etc, where unnatural colors and high contrasts are hyped...

Olympus fails because it holds the aperture wide open all the time with many lenses, regardless of the aperture setting, which means that there is no such thing as true wysiwyg when you are shooting stopped down… there have been a number of posts about that, even in the m4/3 echo chamber.

"Sony EVF could not cope with this, it was just too dark, even at full brightness setting"

just another example of not knowing how to operate a camera... I shoot in bright mid-day sun all the time with sony, the evf is never "just too dark"... one thing that did help with that is using a big aftermarket eyecup, which can be done with any camera.

That is not same thing as S-OVF. You can disable exposure preview by enabling Live View Boost, but it is not same thing as S-OVF.

So LOL to you.....

"Olympus fails because it holds the aperture wide open all the time with many lenses, regardless of the aperture setting, which means that there is no such thing as true wysiwyg when you are shooting stopped down… "

s-ovf and so-called "live view boost" are failed attempts to make up for crippled small-sensor functionality, that ff milc does not need; and your nonsense posts about oled evf panels are hilarious, lol

@medisn - so-called "dof preview" on m4/3 does not give a wysiwyg display, because the exposure in the evf doesn't always change along with the change in visible dof... but with sony ff, you can have true wysiwig all the time, no need for a silly "dof preview" button.

@MILC manThe DOF preview can be locked (on) in menu OR assigned to a toggle button (for occasional use) in Olympus bodies. The EM5 thread you reference may not have had the menu lock option but that was 7 years ago. You can get WYSIWYG real-time all the time on more recent Panasonic and Olympus bodies.

I haven’t found a S-OVF equivalent option on my Sony’s. Would be nice when working with speedlights.

@medisn - i'm not sure why the two links that I posted are so confusing for you, but it clearly backs up exactly what I said... m4/3 is weak sauce, and of course no sony owner wants "s-ovf", lol, because it's entirely unnecessary for us.

that's a big part of the problem, you simply don't know anything about sony.

as the thread link that I posted already proved... you made false claims about Olympus so-called "weather sealing", tried to trash sony, then posted up a garbage olympus lens as an example of, I don't know what, lol

Now that Olympus came with this camera, they should also come up with lenses for it: f/2 or faster zooms. The f/2.8 line is great, but I wouldn't buy this body without f/2 zooms available for it. They produced them for FT, now they have to do the same for MFT.

Faster apertures are not just about enabling lower ISO in low light (at the cost of DOF), but also about achieving less DOF in the first place.

On FF, I tend to use f/4 quite often, so for me, f/2 on MFT is a requirement for many lenses.

And don't get confused about what Olympus did so far. They started with slow lenses because they pushed the compact aspect of their system as a selling point. But now that they are building larger, more expensive bodies, they also need to provide the larger, more expensive lenses.

You seem to get confused by terminology now. Yes, a faster lens will allow a faster exposure time, but if you think that's the only use of a faster/wider aperture, then maybe you should practice photography a bit more before talking about it.

JeezLouise. I've moved from Nikon through Fujifilm and have settled quite comfortably into Olympus. We're not all pros or high end sports shooters. I'm shooting these days with a Pen F and E-M1 with various Olympus lenses (most love the primes), with very happy results. The M43 sensor has limitations, but the overall package is great for someone like me who wants to haul around his camera all day long. The 5-axis IS also fantastic, as I'm approaching 70 years of age and nowhere near as steady as I once was. All that being said, I am probably not a candidate for an E-M1X, but have my eye on an E-M1ii when prices fall on lightly used bodies as enthusiasts move to the E-M1X.

@jimmmy: same here, Nikon to Fuji to Olympus, with no regret whatsoever to leave Fuji. Made the move few months ago, I have the E-M1II with only the 12-40mm and adapted manual focus lenses. There's so much to enjoy with this camera, from incredible customization possibilities to, as you mentioned, the IBIS, and much more. I currently capture moments of my newborn son but otherwise enjoy most nature photography (essentially macro and birds).

Well, you do get a longer reach from the 300mm than from 500mm on FF and the image stabilization and sealing of the E-M1X will be superior to that of the A99 as well.

So what you're noticing is that as performance get to be equivalent, so does weight (and cost). This should be no surprise to anyone that understands how cameras work.

The cheaper/lighter/smaller part comes into play when you have a full system and you can choose whether to take with you this monster combo or a Pen+Panasonic pancake lens that you can fit into your pocket. The advantage is: VERSATILITY. Show me the EF mount camera that fits in my pocket with a lens and then I'll agree that MFT doesn't offer anything that you can't get from a FF system.

Then get those two other cameras, build a complete system around them and start using.... If you are happier with one of any other than Olympus, great.But if you do as many Olympus users using those and chooses Olympus, then ain't that great too?

Good looking and looks like an improved focus system. That's great but I left the m4/3 system because of the noise (even at iso800). the em1-ii i had was fast, great image quality at iso 640 and below, and focus was great with the right lenses. It was great getting 800mm optical reach with the pan/leica 100-400 lens with such a small light camera and lens. Not sure if they improved the noise problem using the same sensor.

I hope they did improved, but not sure. EM1-II was one of the best 4/3 sensor, so if you are not happy with its low light performance, I doubt you will be with this bad boy. If you are not very dependent on AF system, then you may try a speedbooster, which will keep you under the ISO800 with a stop more light, and works great on APSC sigma Art lenses (the f/1.8 zooms).On my GH5 they are f/1.2!

I agree, I had hoped that they had improved the high iso noise but also realised that physics is not in favour with m43 generally having higher pixel density and smaller pixel size than FF. The GH5S sensor does appear to be a gem for low light performance but it obviously is compromised in other ways.

@After School Sports, GH5S for 4k videos yes; you won't need more resolution that the 10MP sensor already offers. It's size is bigger than normal 4/3 sensor and dual native ISO works like a charm, but all for videos.I haven't seen any of its impact on dpreview image quality comparison. Or maybe they disabled dual native, not sure.But otherwise with dual native ISO + bigger sensor + a speedbooster Ultra + sigma 18-35 f/1.8 Art lens, is your best bet for low light video shooting. It will give tough time to Pany S1 with kit f/4.0 zoom lens.

The ISO 800 performance on MFT will always be on par with the ISO 3200 performance on FF. Anyone that is happy with their FF camera performance at ISO 3200 (and I haven't heard anyone complain about it), should not complain about how MFT performs at ISO 800, because there is no difference.

AlexisH: So it doesn;t matter which FF I get, IQ will Always be the same? No. In reallife the gain currently is about 1,5 stops for FF (give or take half a stop depending on which cam you buy) and as compared to Oly Em1.2 and probably Em1X.

@Jorginho .. it all depends on sensor tech mate.Older FF can't beat latest 4/3 sensors like the one in em-1 ii.Recent 1 like Sony's are roughly 1.5 stops better, but Canons like in 6D is under a stop. Check Dxo to get more clarity on it. I won't bother too much, as depending on the type of photography, these latest 4/3 sensors are good enough to take good shots around ISO3200. plenty for sports shooting.You may add a speed-booster and some fast Canon glass and now you are in another league.

The sensor is not exactly the same, and the evf is completely different. Same resolution, but new bigger optics and progressive scan which offers much better response with a minimal lag. Well done homework!

A QUARTER FRAME (in 35mm terms) sensor camera for $3,000. LMFAO, suckers line up! So much for how smaller formats were always going to be so much cheaper because of the sensor costs/yields/insert additional "crop factor" propaganda here!

I didn't realize that everything in any cameras value should compared as a dollars per unit of sensor size. But then, I only shoot large format film, I never understood why anyone would settle for a miniscule 35mm crop? But if I were to buy a 35mm cam, I would get a low end cheap body, because according to you there is no value proposition in things like speed, autofocus, or processing power.

@wallybipster"i only shoot large format film" ...Are you the same Wallybispter from the m43s forum posting about how you and your girlfriend are shooting Oly m43s ?one example - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62281633:-)

To be fair, Panasonic's new FF efforts are obviously targeted at a different market to the $900 M43 units they sell in order keep the lights on. Those new Panasonics are BIG! I know the E-M1X is pretty good sized too, but once you put the grip on the Panasonic S1R and throw a couple of multi-thousand dollar Leica lenses at it, then you're in a whole different ballpark from M43, and it's likely that your use cases are also different.

Is there any other format to stir up so much emotion out there? I don't think so.Those arguments are kind of funny, but I prefer going out and shoot with my m43 gear. Then again, I understand that "full framers" prefer spending their time bashing other systems then going out and shoot...their gear is so heavy! :-D

Scrollop, you need the coffee! and you don’t have clear thinking. Haha...next time you’re out make sure you bring along your 24-70 and 70-200 f4zooms, with your Sony, so you can get the facts on the weight of your system, oh and you should leave your tripod at home to save more weight. Me? I’ll just leisurely shoot ultra sharp hand held 1/4 second photos while walking around with my EM1ll and razor sharp 12-100. (24-200 Pro)

Scrollop...I am only using manual focusing lenses on my a7 ( which I'm about to sell, no use).The Samyang 85 1.4 is heavy and the Canon FD 135 2.0 is even more. My 50 1.4 Zeiss planar is manageable. But I can take three or four micro43 lenses with me with the same weight as one of those full frame monsters.Thanks, I had my coffee. You want some?

If this camera and that awesome-looking supertele zoom shown elsewhere would actually be successful and sell well enough that Oly start filtering down the the AF technology to consumer-level cameras and put out some decent 250mm+ lens options that don't cost multiple thousands of dollars, that would be good. MFT IQ will never match FF but if the goal is to get the shot and share quickly you could do a lot worse with your $6K. I wonder how well it tethers, and how easy it is to transfer images to your phone or laptop. Those seem like very important features for this design philosophy.

At least Pentax has strength in value and specialization. K-1 is one of the best for landscape, architecture, item or anything low motion. Only A7R III and Panasonic full frame can do better in there, but they cost at least twice more. This Olympus seems to just pack lots of features which are then crippled by the sensor when looking at the price, weight and size.

Like the middle class right. We are better off with poor phones or medium format cameras. I own a latest model phone, an M4/3 and 2 FF. I could not think of a more fun addition. Costs very little too and easy to carry.

Northrup has done another hatchet job on the EM1X. Virtually every point he makes is invalid, a misrepresentation or just wrong. He is doing immense harm to the brand and format with his misinformation, just disgusting.

He lumped the hi-res systems together as if they use the same system. The Olympus system gives full colour, the others are a joke. He is also doing the same hatchet job on the new Panny S1. He is either incredibly ignorant or is slyly getting funded and or being provocative to steer validated Sony users to order via his site.

I knew he hates M43, but I'm kinda surprised he'd have much bad to say about the new Panasonic/Leica flagship. I mean hey, it's full frame! And it's not like there's much wrong with those Leica lenses either.

Yes, all 121 PDAF sensors are cross-type, which is something Olympus has done for years. Sony, for example, only uses horizontal line sensors. Other makers have also been stingy with cross-type sensors in the past, and they probably haven't changed.

How many stupid comments have I read on so many forums including the one below stating "At this size, weight and price"... When will people differentiate between Mirrorless and Compact System Camera. At this size, weight and cost (for example with the 300mm on the front) it is a third of the size, a third of the weight and a third of the cost of a 1DX 600mm, D5 600mm or A9 500mm combo. For wildlife and sports photographers having to carry this level of gear round and pay for it it is just what we want! Image quality for publication is fabulous. Now if you want to get a FF camera and 600mm F4, pay $12,000 extra over the Olympus equivalent and carry it round for 8-10 hours a day feel free. You will make me laugh and I know there will be lots of places I can carry my gear to and lots of shots I can get that you can't.

Size. So much blather about sensor size. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the near total domination of "my sensor is bigger and better than your sensor" comments are submitted by boys and men?

ca·thex·is. Dictionary result for cathexis/kəˈTHeksəs/Submitnoun PSYCHOANALYSISthe concentration of mental energy on one particular person, idea, or object (especially to an unhealthy degree).

There are a lot of empty comments coming from 35 mm aficionados, who appear to be insecure with the announcement of this camera. Bottom line, if you don’t shoot with m4/3, don’t like the format and never plan to use it, then stay out of this forum!

A lot of people like to tell you what they think they know.A lot of FF users need to justify their lens cost+weight disadvantage.Some need the IQ advantage of FF under SOME conditions and aren't willing to learn how to work around that.There are great photos+not so great photos from both sensor sizes.

No one but an Olympus faithful is buying this camera. They can talk as if this camera is for others, but its not going to sell. Olympus is probably gonna start hiding losses again. But then again, the imaging division has been in the red for decades, so I guess they'll just keep making stuff at the medical divisions expense.

But yeah, this camera is Inventory. Defeats the whole purpose of M43. I don't care if it's supposed to rival the best sports shooters from Canikon. Nobody is leaving those camps for this.

I find the harsh criticism levelled at the Olympus OMD EM-1X to be unfair.

It is not a Full Frame camera, and it cannot give the same image quality at high ISO's as a Full Frame camera. That is a given. It is a compact camera with a smaller sensor. At lower ISO's, it will perform brilliantly with similarly capable optics. Its image quality will be worlds apart from any mobile phone.

The OMD EM-1X is solid, it is dependable, and has many more advantages than disadvantages.

Olympus OMD EM-1X is very nice camera indeed, however not for 3000USD/EUR/GBPSport pros will stay with Nikon, Canon, and for enthusiasts it is too expensive, they will not buy it (they say it on youtube, posts on forums, etc.), even excellent photographer Petr Bambousek wrote he will not buy it (he does not need it anyway, because his skill allows him take nice photos with any current m43 camera)

Well being dependable is something that needs be field proven.We are talking ultmate sports weappn afterall.My personal criticism remains about its price tag.Whilst i understant the cost of embedding such a list of featuresI don’t frankly see the reason for many pros switching from canon or Nikon or even Sony to mft fir this mission critical application, yet.But hey, let’s all welcome this nice addition to the mft club.

I am a professional sports and wildlife photographer with over 5,000 images published in the national newspapers. I shoot Olympus and have ordered 2 E-M1X's which together cost less than a 1DX or D5. For it's quality and target audience it is a performance bargain! Shutters rated at 400,000 shots, extra battery life and phenomenal IS and AF are reason enough without looking at the inbuilt ND and 50mp handheld hi-res allowing me to do full days of wildlife and landscape shooting in a compact package with no tripod. It is something that you may not understand, but to a lot of professional photographers, size and weight with beautiful commercial image quality is far more important than pixel peeping.

I was just looking around at comparing this EM-1X prograde/built camera and lens choices to the FF alternatives from Canon, Nikon and Sony.

Ok first yes, I know given aperture a M4/3rds has basically double the depth of field and double the sensor noise... I and I dare say for all of us M4/3rds shooters we get it. But I say 99% of any clients or viewers given viewing the same shots, same conditions, same subject WON'T GIVE A FRIG!

So Lets put a kit together for say sports, motor sports, wildlife, birding.

Phileas Fogg except the part where you compare Olympus 300m F4 to Canon 600mm or Nikon F4, for Canon or Nikon you should select appropriate equivalent lenses that means cheaper lens, e.g. 300mm F4 and 2x teleconverter. Olympus is 2500USD, Canon 300 F4 is 1350USD Canon TC is 430USD so Canon full frame is significantly cheaper than Olympus.But normal people know it and will never buy big, heavy and expensive M43 camera.

Yet another clueless comparison ignoring equivalence and pixel count. 45MP FF sensor can be cropped by 1.5x to be used as 20MP APS sensor. m43 300mm f4 is equivalent to ff 600mm f8, not 600mm f4. There is absolutely no weight advantage of m43 system IF you do correct comparison.

I compared TOP PRO GRADE camera bodies as the EM-1X is meant in all ways to compete with 1DXMKII, D5 and A7III.

Trk

I use COMPARABLE lenses not just in FOV but in maximum aperture as such the Oly choices are as close to direct comparison as the Canon, Nikon or Sony lenses.

You have given us SLOWER lens choices not equal. Full frame is not cheaper based on general comparison of equal bodies, build wise and usability, equal lenses in terms of PRO build to max. aperture. Plus I doubt that Canon, Nikon or Sony PRO grade lenses are any sharper under real world scrutiny. PIXEL PEEPERS may or may not see some variations (more so due to acceptable manufacturing tolerances) but I doubt it and I bet 99% of any viewers or buyers of images from any of these FOUR kits will see nor care any differences. Fact is a pro using the Oly kit here will get in general as good/usable images in same situations as CAN/NIK/SON set ups and keep lots of cash, save his back/shoulders too. :-)

You are not comparing effectively similar gear. 45MP shooters are not going to shoot 100's or 1000's of images and then sit in post CROP them to 20MP. No sports shooter HAS THE TIME AS HE/SHE likely has a deadline.

EM-1X, 1DMKII, D5 and A7III are all between 20-24 MP OUT OF CAMERA.

Equivalency is an FF shooters whine and moot point. WHY NOT SHOOT DIGITAL MF THEN IF IT MATTERS SO MUCH!?! I noted M4/3rds shooters know in terms of DOF and noise m4/3ds gives a compromise. But in reality LIKELY NOBODY CARES! In terms of lens speed, F. stops are F.stops F1.8, is F1.8, F2.8 is F2.8, etc.

I am comparing DIRECTLY out of the BOX and gear to gear equal range PRO bodies and PRO lenses of same or similar FOV and max aperture. Kits above a sports, motorsports and wildlife shooter (or anyone for that matter) can get similar and just as FANTASTIC to viewers eyes images with Oly kit and save $, weight and size.

The FF kits are superb no doubt but I'll give a bit of DOF and noise and keep $$$

once again .. well said Phileas .. glad someone else on this forum have eyes :)Your last line about DOF though, I would say for sports, astro and landscape work, I would rather have 4/3 sensor's DOF. It's plenty where needed and blurry where not. For eg this one, tell me why would you want shallower than this:https://www.flickr.com/photos/hakeem-na/23736139913/in/album-72157660267381795and all from tiny gx7 and tiny oly 45mm lens.For High ISO performance even E-m1-II sensor outperformed Canon 80D and less than one stop EV difference than 6D and very comparable to Sony's popular 6500A. Check and compare on notorious Dxo!

As usual when Oly users compare Oly with FF, it's apples and oranges. You take Oly f2.8 lenses and compare them with FF f2.8 lenses. That's nonsense. You can't just take the beneficial part of equivalence and leave the negative part out. You have to compare your f2.8 lenses with FF f5.6 lenses and those are considerably cheaper and lighter.

Your comparison is totally meaningless as you can call anything a pro gear. You need to compare equipment with EQUIVALENT CAPABILITIES. m43 sensors has two stops of IQ disadvantage with the same sensor tech (because of 1/4 sensor area). And m43 sensor is years behind in sensor tech, which makes the gap even larger (No BSI, no stacked sensor)

Let's assume you are taking indoor sports photography. You need 1/1000 seconds of exposure to freeze the motion. (In case you don't know, stabilization won't help against moving subjects). You need 2.8 lens with m43 system because ISO higher than 1600 is unusable. With APS system, one can use f4 lens and ISO 3200 to get the same shutter speed. With FF system, f5.6 lens and ISO 6400 will work. That's how equivalence works.

And there is no DOF *advantage* with small sensor system either. FF+f5.6 lens has the same DOF with APS+f4 lens or m43+f2.8 lens. Due to the diffraction limit, you cannot stop down too much without losing image quality. The diffraction limit is based on the pixel pitch, which is inversely proportional to sensor size if the MP count is the same.

All of this is can be straightforward learned after taking a number of shots inddors in available light.

@Einride; truly mate and they keep on saying the same gibrish over and over again. dof, f2.8 f5.6 bla bla bla! like we had no idea before buying 4/3 sensor camera how big is the sensor size and lens apertures :))pathetic truly!!

@nerd2, I see you here again posting things that are half true or erroneous. 45mp cropped is less than 20mp so you already have a crazier result. The 45mp also hace very high density and can’t have the same IQ as 25mp FF so again comparing apples to chicken. Also, you cannot crop weight. You cannot crop price. And you cannot replicate any of the advantages that are allowed by this camera. 7.5 ibis or 7 is 2 stops vs FF, and that is not doable in your version. Also, the highest quality at FF will come from primes. The second you touch a prime at the distance, now the world needs to dance around you at the exact focal length. Guess what? It won’t. So you put an extremely heavy zoom lens now. Another innacuracy is you mislead. F4 is F4. The equivalence applies to dof not LIGHT. Actually, you are stating cropping to 1/4 the picture, you are discarding 3/4 of the pic. And you are then keeping 1/4, any distortion of the lens gets amplified and you win little.

you should adopt a 4.0/300 mm PF Nikkor on the Olympus camera - then you see clear:Nikon is cheaper, Nikon is much lighter, Nikon is smallerand you get a 4/600 mm with f:8 dof.But - you loose AF and the Olympus Pro IS is a little bit sharper and a bit better in deep front light.But you can never ever compare a 4/600 mm fullframe with a 4/300 mm construction - that is a very stupid idea.

sadly most of that glorious FF AF system will do not a lot because it doesnt get enough light to do it's job properly. also - especially with the long lenses - the OPEN aperture sharpness determines the quality and speed of AF. something a lot of people never understand. open aperture matters. everywhere you want to focus in the frame. and damn, those pro-Oly lenses are sharp.

for me? body way too heavy, i'll stick with my D500 and some small Panasonics as sidekick cameras. yes, sports, weddings and such.

Also D500 is a capable camera, if it helps some work done for you sports, wedding etc, I would keep it. I am not into Sports or weddings etc, but landscape and videos. So recently got Pany's FF S1, what a beast. Love it in many ways.

But where I need to get my video stuff done, I still prefer m4/3 with tiny primes and sometimes even my drone's 1" sensor.

Whatever it takes to get the job done mate! I would still argue that 4/3 is the sweet spot of all sensor sizes!

Like what? The em1-x has 7.5 stops of IS, what good is that to a sports shooter? Built in computational ND filter, again what good is it to a sports shooter? So please describe how the technology of the EM1-x is so much better then the D500 for a sports photographer.

@Felice that mean have been through these silly args too many times!no one is telling any thing new .. same repetitive gibrish@turbsy that mean you will be more active and dont need to stick to a fixed tripod location. Rest, Em-1's high ISO performance is good enough. Plenty of debates on it, if you follow the threads you will find it!

The image stabilization is a cool gimick but for a sports shoot it's really not that important for a sports shooter. Your not shooting sports at 1 sec. And the high ISO advantage of the full frame sensor is a lot more useful then 7.5 stops of IS.

@turbsy, why don’t you tell us, instead, how a heavy system that costs 2x and weights 2 or 3x benefits the photographer? Motor sports shooters capture motor sports shots. Tell us how it does help them to not have a car tracking feature? Sports in your definition is a guy sitting still near a trippod. In Oly definition it’s someone moving, active, part of it.

What are you talked ng about? Your little thing about needing to be more active? Shooting sports needs high Shutter speeds. Having 7.5 stops of IS does not help in any way. And the D500 and the Nikon 300mm f4 will weigh less then the olympus.so the heavy system thing is a lame argument.

So you have no valide argument is really what your saying. Sports require high shutters press it's not that hard to figure out. Usually in low light. This camera has amazing tech. I just do not see it as a benefit to a sports shooter.

argument is not convincing enough for someone like you! for many others I didn't need to explain it multiple times.I said it before ... you are not going to get it!

By the way, your sole point is High ISO performance, there is nothing wrong with its shutter speed. It can take 18 fps with auto-focus; and operational life of an incredible 400,000!High ISO point is also invalid in general; as even E-m1-II high ISO scores (Dxo) was in the same region as A6500 and it beats hands down the Canon D80. For 4/3 sensor it's very competent. It can't compete with fullframes obviously, but there are several APSH like Canon 1D Mark IV and beyond with lower ISO scores than this one. How sports photographers were shooting with those cameras a decade ago and in film era with ISO 400 limitations? Even latest Canon 6D is less than a stop of high ISO advantage. Pathetic isn't it?

That's in general!! specific to sports photography, mostly those photos are targeting towards web or newspapers, magazines etc, for those places High ISO images of a new BSI Sony 4/3 sensor is more than good enough.

Now please stop trolling and go enjoy your Fullframe camera!Have a good weekend!

I didn't wanna answer? ... gave you heaps of answers mate; just read over my responses again. you ignored all responses .. even the last two.it's good you are not oly fan boy and no one should. just appreciate what all these good companies are bringing to the table and don't moan/ complain/ exaggerate unnecessary!

@turbsy, Brownie- you obviously haven’t shot the current sensor in the EM1 Mark ii. up to 3200 iso the difference in IQ vs a D500 is negligible especially in real world use. You get a stop of DR advantage - less so at higher iso - I just sold my D500 as the EM1 mark ii is a better camera for action. This due to better lenses. You fail to see the point that the lenses really matter. Having f2.8 of light gathering ability with a 5.6 Dof is an advantage in sports/action that has nothing to do with IBIS. The higher iso advantage is lost with a 300 f4 on a D500 vs a EM1 with a 300 f2.8. You have more reach with the Oly. Not to mention wide open you are still getting full stop of shutter speed. The current sensor in the Olympus combined with superior lenses is why this is a great camera for sports vs a D500

When Steve Jobs rejoined Apple weeks before filling bankruptcy he fired 9 different PR agencies and just did one video: To The Rebels. So yes, even if Olympus fails, it is good marketing. Actually, it’s awesome marketing. Also note that at that time, everyone was fixated on the MHz and RAM and latest whatever. Is Olympus Apple? Will it work? I don’t know. But is Olympus targeting this camera to adventurers? Yes.

it worked on me MikeRan .. it didn't on you ...whenever you will be a pro sports + wildlife photographer who don't like to carry a telescope (sized lens) to shoot little birds and a heavy tripod, you will get it!

With all due respect Aki Murata, olympus anerica vp maeketing, has really no valid argument to me.Bow if that’s vp marketing how in this world would olympus convince people (fanboys apart of course) m1x is the promise land?

I presently carry the Em1 Mark II covering FF equivalent 14mm through 300mm in pro grade weather sealed glass and a 75mm f1.8 lens along with a complete ND filter set, an accessory flash, a commander flash, a battery charger, a couple cords, memory cards and an external hard drive in a medium size sling bag. I will soon be able to drop a 2x teleconverter in the bag and cover up to 600mm. All while getting very good IQ up to ISO 3200 and shooting handheld.

I am able to readily and easily carry the entire package anywhere and into any conditions with virtually no meaningful burden. I have taken that entire package 22 miles into the Atlantic ocean on a Jetski with everything but the 75mm f1.8, the hard drive, the battery charger and the flashes because they are not weather sealed. Soon, I'll be able to throw a weather sealed flash in the bag.

DP, I would bet that my E M1 with the battery grip is probably the same weight as the EM1X, if not heavier. I down sized for a Canon 1D MK III and having full control in portrait mode was ideal, well worth the small charge. That Canon (exactly the same shape and layout as the M1X) with an EF 70-200/2.8 L weighed about 7 lbs. Then add the 16-35 and 24-70/ 2.8 Ls and the m.Zuikos are light as feathers. I am very satisfied with the 1.7 primes, compared to the Canon EF 1.4s or 1.8s...the Oly glass is miniscule. I prefer the tilt LCD on the EM1 and don't want the articulated one as video is not my thing.

@fakuryu It's a bit confusing as he used to be a direct employee of Olympus but he left some time ago to work with Ming Thein. He became an Olympus Visionary recently though so while he's not a direct employee you can be sure he's not going to say anything negative about the camera although I don't really think that means he's going to be dishonest at all, just maybe downplay some of the stuff he doesn't like as opposed to an independent reviewer who may rant about the negatives.

Image quality is quite disappointing considering the price. I didn't find any sample photo which is actually sharp. Those high ISO shots are plagued with muddy details and washed out magenta tint. A bit silly to pay from features which are severely gimped by that sensor. Smallish sensors are for the price and convenience, so what this is trying to do?

It's nowhere close to what that camera can do which is my point. Whoever shot those images didn't actually use the capabilities of the camera. The Nascar shot could have been shot at ISO 800 at a 300mm FF equivalent with a bit higher fstop and 1/60 to 1/80 shutter speed. It would have been a tack sharp clean file with excellent color rendition.

What FF camera can achieve that performance in a handheld set up?

The seated portrait should have been shot at ISO 200-400 handheld at much much lower shutter speed and the image would have been a tack sharp perfectly clean file. Again, what FF system can do that in a handheld system at 600mm without a tripod?

Actually, I've shot my Z7 at 200mm, 1/50. No problems. I think Sony can do that too. Good technique and 4-5 stops of IBIS gets you that.

It will be interesting to see if Oly sells enough of these to make the camera viable or if it will go for 40% off in a year or so. There's some unique tech in this. Will that be enough to offset the loss of high ISO performance, which is very important with wildlife?

I like the extra DOF of the smaller sensor. That's a plus when shooting sports or birds. And, the smaller lenses are a definite positive. Watching this camera will be fun. It doesn't fit my needs. Maybe it does yours?

Yes. It's easier to hand hold slow speeds on a M43. OTH, you get the shutter speed back with the FF high ISO advantage. No knock on either. Both ways have advantages.

Using long zooms my subject is often moving so I don't want the motion blur that comes with the slower speed. The real advantage of M43 and the greater IBIS ability is with wide angles and deliberate motion blurring of water or clouds.

Anyway, 1/60 is easily hand-holdable at 12mm as it comes at a speed 5 times the focal length. You are familiar with the rule of thumb that says a shutter speed of 1-2 times the focal length is generally hand-hand holdable without stabilization?

It is fruit of culminating efforts to compete with full frame cameras - leading to absurdly big, heavy and expensive camera with miniature sensor. Logic broke chains and insanity rules in m43 format.M43 sensor is maxed out, currently there is serious slowdown in CMOS technology advancement and only way to improve things is larger sensor which has in comparison with m43 room to improve. Panasonic realized this soon to avoid awful fate that is now prepared for Olympus.

Awfully big camera for such a small sensor. Awfully expensive camera for such a small sensor. I personally have never been a fan of dual grip cameras, my dual grips sit in a drawer gathering dust - I think their primary focus is to enlarge the egos of people carrying the camera. need a second battery - carry a second battery.

There's not a single day that goes by that I miss lugging my old kit around. Not one day. It is so much easier and I carry multiple lenses, ND kit, battery charges, accessory flashes, etc. In a medium sling bag. It goes in any condition you can throw at ta boot. And I have never felt like the IQ I have now. Is someone terribly. Every time I here the FF contingent wax on about that I just laugh.

If you don’t need 500mm+, extreme w dealing and much better mobility then you don’t need this camera. It’s a “no Tripod needed” usb-c thetered charging that gets 0.0 ms lag (actually it has a NEGATIVE LAG) and is ready for heavy rainstorm, desert storms or your -10C or even worst conditions with a package that has lens weighting and costing about 1/2. People are overlooking it’s a camera to be abused. It’s not a pet. It’s a bull. Could it be FF? No because Olympus has no lenses or foundry to survive, and it would also not be able to do 7.5 stops stabilization, nor negative lag, no something you’d want to carry.

The bottom line: this cañera is not about sacrificing quality for no savings. This camera is about all the magnificent shots that wiould have never happened otherwise. And we’ll only prove this when the pics start coming

Also a remnant of when people starting wondering if lugging 8lb around plus several pounds more, was also hindering their mobility and ability to shoot how and what they need when the job requires 400mm+ (FFeq).

Hmmm... I can have the sam IQ as FF 90% of the time where my gear it at least half the weight, is half the size and half to a quarter of the price of FF. The other 10% the loss in IQ is acceptable for me.

So... in my opinion... FF is not an alternative and does not come close to my needs.

I carry my GM5 in my coat pocket. I know two NatGeo photographers who have M43 cameras with them always. Sure, they have other cameras, too, but the small size and weight are a definite plus when you always want a camera with you.

That may have nothing to do with this new Olympus, at least until you've carried a 600mm lens around with you all day. Can you say aching back? This is an interesting proposition. I'm curious to see how it sells.

A lot of buzz going on about this camera, some hate the thought and some are interested in it. The main thing is people are talking about it in different brand forums and Olympus is very happy about that.

@nex55: I don't really understand what you are saying but if it is: that attention does not lead to sales, then I must demur. It may not lead to "more" sales of this camera—which is rather specialised, but it will quite likely lead to sales of their other cameras. In other words: it brings attention to the brand and that is a large part of marketing.

They have a suite of cameras just like anyone. Else. It's now more robust. And it's drawing attention to the Whole brand. And they are showcasing significabt advancements as well. It's absolutely a good thing.

"Just look at all the attention it is getting them :-)"But on balance I would say that most of it is negative attention, with:* No confidence in the small sensor size.* Large body size that negates the m43 advantage.* High price.

It is receiving a lot of negative comments here on DPReview however it is also getting lots of positive comments both here and at reputable sites like Imaging Resource. And much of the negative comment here is misplaced. * Yes it is large, as a dual grip camera designed for sport and action photography of course it will be large, all such cameras are. * The small sensor size maybe a disadvantage for some—I see the same criticism for APS-C sensors from those who think FF is the holy grail. It is not for me and I accept that m4/3 is fine for many applications. * Compared to other cameras in this niche it is not such a high price. (Add the price of two grips to the OM-D E-M1 Mark II (at release time pricing) and it is not so far away.

I stand by my earlier statement. Olympus has been quiet for a while, this is bringing them back into public notice. And it introduces some interesting features that people expect to flow on the their future camera releases. So people will be watching

Why do you need twice the focal length on full frame? Why not just use a 40-50 Mp full frame camera and about the same focal length, and crop a bit? Field of view (crop factor) doesn't matter, unless you are too close to the subject.

@ Daft Punk: I don't buy your argument, since you could use higher ISO with a larger sensor camera, and still end up with at least the same image quality.

Ibis is a nice feature, but I would not put too much into the effect of stabilization for action/wildlife/birds in flight and stuff like this. I would rather use higher ISO settings to get faster shutter speed to freeze the subject.

@Daft Punk: Compared to the D500 (or the D850 in DX crop mode) with the 500/5.6 PF, the E-M1X along with the 300/4 doesn't offer any "extra reach" at all. In addition, the size difference between the Olympus 300/4 and the Nikon 500/5.6 PF is negligible from my point of view.

@ the decent exposure: Actual variables are pixel pitch (resolution), sensor area that is covered by the subject (noise), focal length (the size of the projected image on the sensor, independent of sensor size as long as the subject is smaller than the smallest sensor), lens aperture wide open (limiting shutter speed) and ISO (noise, expanding use of fast shutter speed). Then just do the calculations.

@ the decent exposure: Who have claimed you could? Unless you can move so close that the subject fills the full frame sensor, based on camera to subject distance and the variables mentioned above … real world possibilities rarely is the one or the other, rather a mix of possibilities and fuzzy limitations.

Hi Magnar W, you would not do it because it would be as practical as buying a Ferrari to go shopping at the local market and take the kids to school. There are so many misguided comments in these fora that must come from people who are theorizing without practical experience. I work with both a Nikon D3s and Olympus E-M5II's with pro lenses and am quite clear about when to use which. So do the many pros who have added an M43 system to their FF gear. As I keep saying, if an M43 sensor can give you the output you need, then an M43 system can put the fun back into a full day of (outdoor) shooting and drastically reduce your chiropractor bill. If you truly need an FF sensor then the discussion is futile. Ironically, many people posting in these fora do not have the technique to exploit even an M43 sensor and should stick to their cell phones.

@ wondrouslightdotcom: I have to agree with much of what you write here. That said, you can also build light and compact systems with larger sensors, especially if you go for pixel dense sensors, and stay away from large and bulky DSLR cameras.

From my point of view, MFT should have it's place among photographers at all levels, though. ;-)

Not really.. Use a Sony A7R3 ( 42 million px). You can crop to make 300mm a 600mm (just an example, consider 600mm image is 2x zoom of 300mm which may not be true) but you only get 10.5 million when Em1x offers 20 million.

Also A7R3 is 10fps in burst mode while Em1x is 18fps. More pixels slower shots.

Unless you can have a 80 million pixels FF sensor, there is no such crop trade-off. Also 80 million means even slower FPS in burst mode since 1 shot has much more data to deal with.

I read all replies to this thread. Some are saying a D850 and 500 5.6 and a 40/50MP (which one is 50PM I don't know?) is about the same, and bumping the ISO a bit more compensates the IBIS. Here's some math:

First, FF would be DIM compared. Nothing is won. The 5.6 discards over 60% of the light. The E-M1X discards nothing. Also, it's 2.8f vs 5.6f, about two stops difference. Second, that MP comparison is much worst for Nikon example: the likehood composition is exactly positioned for your exact 500m is almost ZERO. You will have to further crop (or miss due to inability to zoom out). More weight. Lower IBIS value (more dhake if photographer is not still). Good luck! For adventurer-photographers shooting telephoto, this camera makes sense.

@nerd2, no. When you crop 1.5 you retain about 38% of the image, so you get as a result (D850) about 17MP, so no. You can add a 1.4x TC to the 300mm and get over 840mp at about the same amount of light. With E-M1X the thing you lose is depth of field in the E-M1X, which at that. That's all.

you don't need to stabilize 7 stops. THis is crazy. Look at the samples in the gallery here.. the lack of details from 1600 ISO is unacceptable. I'd rather go 46MP FF and shorter FL, then crop in. even at 6400 ISO A9 or D850 images will be fully usable..

ozturertyou are right about Sony trolls. the same guy who says Sony's never overheat, and build quality doesn't matter, now said there is no penalty for severe cropping.

To match a 43 4000mm lens, you still need a much more expensive FF camera and a giant 600mm lens, and then need at least a 1.5x crop. And since that FF camera doesn't have very good IBIS (if any), you'll need faster shutter speeds and higher ISOs. Ouch. And if it is a Sony, the build quality and resistance is very questionable. A smartphone is more durable.

Hi Magnar W, there is still a significant difference in portability (between M43 and larger sensors) in terms of lenses. On my web site (my posting name), under Tech Talk check out the side-by-side pics of my EM5II and D3s with similar lenses on. Since I got the D3s (about a year ago), when shooting outdoors I often carry the D3s with the short zoom and one of the EM5II's with the 40-150mm + 1.4 converter (112-420mm f/4 eq, total weight a little over 3lb). The family friend from whom I got the D3s gave away his Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 because he couldn't stand the combined weight (over 8lb). I stick with the EM5ii's without a grip to keep them at minimum size and weight. After 50 years of various kinds of part-time pro photography and a career in electronic engineering I can make my gear jump through hoops. The EM5ii's can handle everything I throw at them (excluding very low light and fast action for which the D3s reigns) and print high quality up to 20x30" at ISO 800.

@ wondrouslightdotcom: I had to take a look at your web site, a nice site that is a joy to explore. ;-)

Comparing one of the smallest MFT cameras to one of the biggest and heaviest DSLR cameras is ok if you want to contrast size and weight to the extreme. But the new E-M1X is not that small, and mirrorless aps-c and full frame cameras are with a noticeable margin smaller than the D3s, and more pixel dense than this Nikon camera.

When talking about print size, I agree fully with you! From my own tests, well exposed 20-24 Mp files from MFT, aps-c and full frame, look pretty much the same, even when judged from large format prints. For many, the work they present, tell that they don't quite take advantage of the full potential of their cameras.

I would say that a weighty argument for MFT is: You don't use larger shoes than you need! ;-)

@nerd2, my math may be wrong but maybe it’s not. Canon APSC (the company with the best line of long tele) has 329 sq MM area. 860 for the full frame. If you consider Nikon or Sony it is a bit larger, and they are about 38% and 40, which means the bet would be 19MP.

But you stated the crop would give you more MP than Oly, but the exact opposite is true. And even in that case your crop dorsn’t even double the reach! You’d have to divide 45mo by 2 twice (sensor for m43 is 1/4th size of FF) and you’d have what, like 11 MP.

So, no. Now, you would agree with me: if you want the same level of bokeh, the fulll frame (or bigger sensor) wins. This is indisputable. When in < 2.8 aperture (FF equiv) at long tele are needed you need the FF and to carry more weight.

Sonys highest resolution sensor cropped 1.5x is only about 17-18 MP. Crop it 2x and you are at a terrible 10.5 MP.

And compare the price and size of Sonys 400mm zoom to the M43 zoom. Remember with Sony despite carrying that massive lens, you'll have to crop down to 10 MP to compete. So you have to buy a lenses that costs twice as much, that is over twice the size, and you end up with a terrible picture with half the resolution. And... Sony's IBIS is the worst in the industry (still better than none) so you might end up with a blurry 10MP mess.

Actually, nerd2 the crop mode in a D850 is 19 MP. The 500 fresnel Nikon is a lovely light lens and it's f/5.6, which puts it above the good focusing aperture with a 2X teleconverter. The fresnel lens also does some strange refractions when shooting into the sun. Nice lens. Real limits. Shoot with the gear before making up stuff.

And also Olympus is full of lies because of ISO manipulation, their ISO knob is one stop higher than reality, you can check this on image comparison in raw files (e.g. in raw digger) - raw image is underexposed one stop versus e.g. Nikon D850 which is for similar price and Nikon D850 weights less than Olympus.They should not call their ISO adjustment ISO but something like fake amplification knob.

So it looks like there is some advancement in sensors in Olympus E-M1X and difference vs full frame is only 1.5 stop not 2, but it is not, it is lies.Their ISO is one stop lower and they compensate it with half stop slower shutter speed so image quality looks like 0.5 stop advancement.And then people say ISO 1600 is fine etc, because it is ISO 800 (maybe even lower).

For me as user, it does not matter if is ISO-200 or IS0-100 underexposed with 1 stop. If Olympus discovered that ISO-100 underexposed with 1 stop is better than ISO-200 well exposed, I do not mind to have the first option.

Anyway both options will give the same exposure time. Where is the "fake amplification" ?Do you know what "ISO variant" camera means ?

Toni Genes, it is issue, because Olympus has to use slower shutter speed so slower shutter speed is used in comparison with other cameras, you can see this in jpeg in dpreview comparison tool.So you end either with underexposed image or with image where shutter speed slower than expected has been used. It is big issue.Issue manifested in arrogant youtuber Jared Polin's review, where he used Olympus E-M1X fake camera like normal camera during football shoot. That yielded in image quality he defined as amateurish.

ISO is a convenience, but it it's about image brightness not exposure, and I would agree that to compare like with like from different camera manufacturers the only reasonable thing is to compare images taken with the same exposure - no matter what "ISO" the camera claims it is.

I guess the trouble is with consumers that treat the "MAX ISO 512.000" the way kids look at the largest number on a car's speedometer as some sort of proof of how well the thing can handle speed like that.

In the case of Olympus, they have had a long tradition of underexposing the sensor, making for grainier and noisier sample images of the same scene than their competitors, but less risk of blown highlights. What the actual ISO "number" is less important to the viewer than what the image output looks like.

Hi TRK, this thing about published specs in real life is irrelevant. If you are really interested in a new camera (system), you do your research on the web (I particularly value IR's print quality tests), narrow down your choices, rent the final candidates and try them out in your own hands, get print samples and then make your final decision. There are so many variables above and beyond specs that make photo gear fun to use or paper weights.

The difference in ISO performance varies by camera. I've seen excellent 12x18 prints from a D5 shot at 102,400 ISO, I mean every feather on a bird looks knife sharp. I've seen screen usable photos a couple of stops faster. Nikon list the top ISO setting at over 3 million ISO, which insane.

Kodachromeguy, I have used Fujifilm X100s, XE2, XT3, XT10 and XH1. At the same ISO value (usually more than ISO400) all gave about 1 stop more exposure time than my Canikon DSLRs. All. Olympus cameras also behave similarly above ISO3200.

More than 1 stop away from the reality! ;( But others are catching up, Panasonic is also nearly 1 stop off soon... I call that betrayment on the customer to show false "facts" while comparing with larger sensors. It's something like announcing wrong specs on fuel economy.

I think there is missunderstanding about what "manufactured ISO" means. I also checked dpreview comparison tool and found that all cameras had the same exposure time. There is no cheating from Olympus. I tried to explain what "manufatured ISO" means but nobody tries to understand...

Whats so difficult to understand? For a given light and a given aperture you have a specifiy exposuretime for ISO 100 f.e.. If the picture is to dark you know how much light is lost... same goes to vignetting.

Most sensors are slightly off the mark, except of some old cams like the first Canon 5D. But what Fuji and Olympus do is too much to be considered as a variance.

@VCSD - from E-M1 MARK II measurements : For ISO-64 DXO measured a manufactured ISO - 83For ISO-200 DXO measured a manufactured ISO - 83 again. Do you think you will get the same exposure time for ISO-64 and ISO-200 ? No, for sure no.

It is the same for the other ISO values. Instead of real ISO-400 Olympus uses an underexposed ISO-162. In both cases the exposure time is the same. So Olympus shots an underexposed ISO-162 and increase the brightness of the picture in the camera engine. There is no cheating. Actually they get nosier pictures, but they preserve better the lights.

No, they don't increase the brightness... the picture is darker with the same exposure. At least that's what my Fuji does. The ISO 64 is surely no real ISO, it's a pulled mode like f.e.ISO50 on Canon cams. Don't mix that up.

They do increase the brightness. I tested it on E-M1 MK II with a basic raw convertor (probably was Raw Therapy but I am not sure), while most of the advanced raw editors (like PS or LR) will apply the brightness correction automatically. Check E-M1 MK ii review. You will notice that all cameras in the test (Fuji XT-2 and D500) have the same exposure time at ISO-200. It is 1/80s for all 3 cameras. Please have a look here:

Hi, it would be nice but require 150 page reviews. I don't think they can afford it. This kind of info is typically found in sites dedicated to a specific branch of photography. I find field reports of real users to be less technical but particularly valuable in real life use.

I've been an Olympus user for over 20 years, and currently shoot with an E-M1 MkII. That said, I don't understand why Olympus made this camera. The key advantage that M43 has over FF cameras is its size/weight. The E-M1 MkII is already so large and heavy that this advantage starts to challange the value of the low light imaging trade-offs. Making a camera body that's nearly FF in size and weight, without the imaging advantages of the larger sensor makes no sense. It might, had the E-M1X added state-of-the-art video capabilities along with the heft, but it doesn't. As such, this camera doesn't seem to advance the Olympus product line in any sort of meaningful way.

Passionateofphotography: I've never felt compromised by using a single battery in my E-M1 body--it lasts for hundreds of shots, especially if you only use the viewfinder display. And, if I run out of juice, a battery change takes less than a minute. But what about not wanting the added bulk and weight? That's the main advantage of m43 cameras.

NiccoPPC: Exactly. If it is only as compact as a FF camera, m43 only has disadvantages as a format. Where it can shine is in being small and light enought to carry with you everywhere and deep into the field without digging deep into your shoulder. Before my E-M1 MkII, I shot for years with the E-M5, which was the ideal size for practicality. Being somewhat larger than the E-M5, the E-M1 MkII is not nearly as effiortless to carry around, though the imaging advantages make up for the increased heft. This new E-M1X has ballooned up to FF size--even larger than the SONY! Though its lenses are still lighter than those for FF cameras, there is no longer any real reason to opt for the smaller sensor Olympus when the cameras get this big.

NicoPPC you’re forgetting the Sony a9, this would be a similar size and weight. It’s an interesting concept and might have been interesting if the a9 and the Fuji xt3 weren’t already here. Based on many reviews both of these cameras have better hit rates than the Olympus so far. I’d personally spend $1,400 for the xt3 over $3,000 for the e-m1x, it’s half the weight, half the size and half the price with proven autofocus. Plus video at 4K 60 FPS.

With the equiv. FF lens the E-M1 weights half and does not need a tripod, and also costs about half. If you don't like this, or don't mind the extra cost and weight and your body doesn't bother you, then don't look at this camera, and sell your EM1. You'll be so happy, and we could all discuss what the camera does, not how some other camera combination does best in one regard, or how much you don't need this camera. I find it amusing that when discussing this camera, all the people are about not understanding the camera since it doesn't suit their needs. Why don't everybody go to the 99% of the cameras the DON'T NEED and post there? It's like everybody noticed a young beautiful lady/lad and all the couples feel compelled to bash her/him, when she/he has done nothing more than show up, and she who likes her. This speaks to what extend people's insecurities. Why do so many need the feel to justify not needing it? Of course you don't! Mov along.

I believe that the main issue here is to decide if the M43 sensor can do the job you want or not. If the answer is yes, then the combination of available bodies and lenses is truly excellent. The camera lineup is exhaustive especially now with the addition of the newer flagships. Between Olympus and Panasonic, there aren't hundreds of lenses to choose from but what is offered has good coverage, is top quality and has great portability. I work with a Nikon D3s and two f/2.8 Nikkor zooms plus two E-M5II's and a number of M43 pro lenses. When (often) shooting gets environmentally tough, it's the small, light and weatherized Oly system I take with me. I intend to acquire a good, long tele zoom to do some animal photography but it's going to be an M43 lens, not a Nikon (very probably the Pana 100-400mm). The m1x is over-engineered for me bit it fits so nicely in the overall system (and adds relevance to it).

Judging from the preliminary images shown here I don't see any IQ advantage over the 5 years older generation of MFTs.This is quite suprising as despite speed ergonomics a camera in this price bracket should be also able to provide top notch IQ.Doesn't look like the case here.

@ wondrouslightdotcom: I had to take a look at your web site, a nice site that is a joy to explore.

Comparing one of the smallest MFT cameras to one of the biggest and heaviest DSLR cameras is ok if you want to contrast size and weight. But the new E-M1X is not that small, and mirrorless aps-c and full frame cameras are much smaller than the D3s, and much more pixel dense than this Nikon camera.

When talking about print size, we agree fully! From my own tests, well exposed 20-24 Mp files from MFT, aps-c and full frame, look pretty much the same, even from large format prints. For many, their cameras are overkill, compared to the work they present.

I would say that a weighty argument for MFT is: You don't use larger shoes than you need! ;-)

There is almost no difference between the Nikon D810 and the EM1 Mark ll at iso 200 making large prints....I have compared both side by side, mirror up on the Nikon 810, and silent shutter in the EM ll. 80-400 on the Nikon, cheap, but sharp little 75-300 ll on the Olympus. Both printed on smooth watercolour paper with an Epson Pro Stylus 7880. Olympus printed to 22X30, and the Nikon was 20X30, because of the ratios......almost no difference! I don’t need a sports camera with high iso performance anyway, as an artist, I find sports photography exceedingly boring, so I am fine with my EM 1ll for now. However, the other features such as high res and the ND function are fabulous, and have my interest!

1. Just watch the samples here on this site about Nikon d5 and Canon 1dx and compare them to Oly m1x. 2. Oly has some unique advantages over FF3. Oly has some disadvantages over FF4. In real pro life's I could say the advantages could easily on many occasions be more important than disadvantages5. Everything else is just hype over FF.

Probably the strangest question I've read on dpr. Most of us don't shower with our cameras Bofo777; and if you do the more pressing questions shouldn't be about the resolution of subsequent photos ;)

As to these 'hi res hand held' photos, it seems that "you get ghosting and / or a loss of detail on moving subjects." So product shots, still life, hmmm - that wouldn't be useful for the majority of us.

I've a great deal of respect for Olympus, and no doubt this is a capable camera, but your question definitely borders on the surreal / absurd.

I agree..that's a strange way to try to frame the value proposition of the OMD.

The problem with the high res mode is that it ties up the camera for several seconds, and it can't really handle very well moving objects. I think one reviewer said it took about 10 to 12 seconds for the camera to composite the stacked image...ouch.

I can use any number of cameras like the Z7, D850, 5DsR, A7R3...and get similar resolution in the blink of an eye and don't have to worry about motion in the frame. And I get the advantages of FF.

That image stacking is a neat trick, but not that practical when considering the alternatives.

The shower question seems a little bit strange but if we translate it to a real world situation it is not. In country's like Scotland, the Netherlands and Norway it actually rains a lot. Without good weather resistant body and lenses you are seriously restricted as a photographer. In country's like Brazil and Indonesia it also rains a lot and the climate is humid. In snow you also want a real good weather sealing. Also on the beach with sand, you don't want sand in your camera or on the sensor. Speaking of, Olympus has upgraded it's leading sensor clean technologie. This camera is build like a tank, that's a benefit for a lot of situations where people who do need the camera to make money.

Where I live now, and the countries nearby, there're 4-6 months/year of light shower to heavy rainstrom, etc.

There are lot of waterfalls; also numerous damped and muddy caves.

In 3 years, my EM1 was exposed to very fine volcano dust once; dropped down in the waterfall once & ~into~ the mud pool inside the cave twice. Not to mention of how many time it's soaked from the heavy rain while I'm in the trip.

Well, it may not what one who always stays before the quiet and peaceful computer screen could comprehend. So, believe in that sentence : The world is wide.

In any rare case where pixel shift seems to be useable you can also stitch together with the double focal length... Means in reality it makes no sense in most situations. The world is not stop spinning while we take pictures

I currently live (for my sins) in England, and am a landscape photographer. Completely understand the value of weather-proofing, and Olympus has always done that well (as have Nikon & Canon high-end cameras). For my work the reliability of kit in rain, snow or dusty desert is paramount. I get it.

I've never taken a shower with a camera though (am I missing out;))

And the 'image stacking', 'high res mode' would be useless for most scenarios. But I still have my E1 (first live-view slr), just can't bring myself to get rid. They make good cameras and lenses, fair do's. This one isn't for me.

This is going to be a jolly nice camera. It will have great IQ and will take great shots under most conditions. This is all true if you thought about this camera in isolation, without reference to any other camera or camera system on the market. Its funny how making that comparison with other comparable cameras seems to take the shine of what is promising to be an excellent camera. But boy, the size/weight of the thing does seem a little off-putting. It would have been so much better if it had been made a similar size to current EM-1 with the extra battery grip as an optional add on. Then it could have been marketed for $500 less than the current asking price (just a guess here - I've no idea how much an add on battery grip should be).

My Nikon D500 with battery pack is bigger than a full professional D2x side by side because there are 2 items bolted together. this is probably the same for any body with a battery pack. If you leave the pack on permanently the camera is larger and heavier.

More about gear in this article

We spoke to Shigemi Sugimoto, the head of Olympus's imaging division at the CP+ show in Yokohama. He talked to us about the appeal of Micro Four Thirds and gave some hints about the types of technology the company is looking at.

With 'Deep Learning' autofocus, crazy-fast burst speeds and refined ergonomics, the E-M1X is the most focused action and sports shooting camera that Olympus has ever made. Here's how it squares up against some key Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competitors.

Chris and Jordan recently reviewed the Olympus E-M1X as a camera for still photography. Now they're back with a whole episode about its video features. Watch to find out where this camera really excels – as well as a couple places where there's room to grow.

Latest in-depth reviews

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

The S1H is a full frame mirrorless camera designed with videographers in mind and includes advanced features like 6K video capture, 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording, improved video scopes, high frame rate recording, Panasonic Varicam color science and more.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.